Feathercrown
@Feathercrown@lemmy.world
- Comment on I am definitely a bird me personally 3 hours ago:
I’ve seen this before. The rooms are like “traditional” bathroom stalls in size and amenities, with the sinks in one place outside. It ends up being structured a lot like a normal multi-person bathroom, just with real rooms for each stall.
- Comment on earth, fire, water, wind - it's not hard 2 weeks ago:
The fourth one is air. Wind is just the movement of air. You wouldn’t say water is river
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
I’m falling for the troll here but I feel compelled to point out that you did NOT read the post I deleted lmao. I deleted it because I posted it before you “responded” to my points. Go check it out, I just restored it. To avoid any further temptation to respond I will be blocking you. Your absence from my future will be greatly appreciated.
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
Parentheses means evaluating the things inaide the parentheses you nimrod
- Comment on 🍺 🍻 2 weeks ago:
Usernames DO NOT check out
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374
But to make a pointless effort to address your actual point, yes distribution exists, no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS). Again, you have not understood my point because you categorically fail to engage with any argument. I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so. I will not respond further to either thread.
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
Oh, it’s you. I really want to have a good discussion about this, but it is not possible with your debate style. Once again, fragmenting your opponent’s argument into a million partial statements and then responding to those is ineffective for several reasons:
-
You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making, and so you do not learn anything by engaging with it. You must first understand to learn.
-
By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context, you are likely to change its meaning, so you are no longer even responding to the meaning of what was said.
-
You are not making a point of your own, which means you are less likely to figure out your own mental model. You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true, without knowing why you believe them to be true.
-
Expanding on point three, it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it. For example, “No they can’t. The rules are universal” and “It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”.
-
Also expanding on point three, this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes you’re making and correct them, because mistakes in your mental model are only visible through the statements you choose to make, which are incoherent when taken together. For example, I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”, but this is not obvious from your main point, because you have no main point, because you do not understand what mine is.
-
If your opponent also used this debate style, the argument takes hours and ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning, completely destroying any hope of having the debate provide any actual value, ie. greater understanding.
Please do not take these as insults; it’s a long shot to fundamentally change someone’s perspective like this in one post, but I would love if you saw the beauty of discussion.
-
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
Uh, no. I don’t think you’ve thought this through, or you’re just using (AS) without realizing it. Conversations around operator precedence can cause real differences in how expressions are evaluated and if you think everyone else is just being pedantic or is confused then you might not underatand it yourself.
Take for example the expression 3-2+1.
With (AS), 3-2+1 = (3-2)+1 = 1+1 = 2. This is what you would expect, since we do generally agree to evaluate addition and subtraction with the same precedence left-to-right.
With SA, the evaluation is the same, and you get the same answer. No issue there for this expression.
But with AS, 3-2+1 = 3-(2+1) = 3-3 = 0. So evaluating A with higher precedence rather than equal precedence yields a different answer.
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
They do, it’s grouping those operations to say that they have the same precedence. Without them it implies you always do addition before subtraction, for example.
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
Are you under the impression that atomizing your opponents statements and making a comment about each part individually without addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together) is a good debate tactic? Because it seems like all you’ve done is confuse yourself about what I was saying and make arguments that don’t address it.
- Comment on Day 1 of posting real shitposts, till people and the mods understand the purpose of the community 3 weeks ago:
Return key? But it works perfectly fine!
- Comment on Sooo... This is happening on Imgur 3 weeks ago:
Kinda weird dude…
- Comment on Sooo... This is happening on Imgur 3 weeks ago:
I mean, it’s not like me enjoying the video is going to affect the guy who got punched. I think it’s good that as a society we support videos that appear to show Nazi cosplayers being punched and don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. If I were actually there IRL and able to affect the outcome, I would also be able to ask for the necessary information to determine what to do.
- Comment on Sooo... This is happening on Imgur 3 weeks ago:
- Comment on Sooo... This is happening on Imgur 3 weeks ago:
Go find out then
- Comment on We're going backwards 3 weeks ago:
I think about it once a month
- Comment on We're going backwards 3 weeks ago:
- Comment on Why do some people have so many tabs open on their browser? 4 weeks ago:
It’s not like it has negative consequences. What right do you have to call it poor?
- Comment on Why do some people have so many tabs open on their browser? 4 weeks ago:
Bro doesn’t understand how things work
- Comment on Why? 4 weeks ago:
That guy is the lemmy version of “it’s a cylinder”
- Comment on Why? 4 weeks ago:
Aaaaagggghhhh
- Comment on I dunno 5 weeks ago:
The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first; there is no “distribution” step or rule that says multiplying without a visible operator other than parentheses comes first. So yes, 36 is valid here. It’s mostly because PEMDAS never shows up in the same context as this sort of multiplication or large fractions
- Comment on I dunno 5 weeks ago:
PE(MD)(AS)
Now just remember to account for those parentheses first…
- Comment on I dunno 5 weeks ago:
Bro doesn’t know how math works
- Comment on I dunno 5 weeks ago:
I do this, sometimes it helps reveal a natural pattern when some parts of earlier terms have “disappeared” to simplification
- Comment on Happy DB Cooper Day to those who celebrate! 5 weeks ago:
DB Cooper was Loki, they revealed it in Season 2
- Comment on The Men Who Stare at Goats 1 month ago:
- Comment on The Men Who Stare at Goats 1 month ago:
You are fascinating.
Here we see the average internet debatebro. They do not possess the necessary skills to participate in a discussion, so they instead attempt to use derogatory language to place themselves above their perceived opponents, where they are free to continue their delusions of grandeur.
- Comment on necessary read 2 months ago:
Such as?
- Comment on necessary read 2 months ago:
I mean props for escaping but you’re still giving advice you would clearly not follow
